Dali Wants You To Eat This Cookie
Nikolaus Maack
planned and the automatic, or the Dalinian and the Bretonian,
respectively. For some reason my saying this caused some people pain.
They argued that all surrealism is "automatic" -- even if the work happens
to be "planned".
I disagree, of course -- but don't I always?
So I'm slogging my way through "The Secret Life of Dali", and what do I
find?
"Who were my enemies? Everyone or almost everyone, except Gala. What
could be called Modern Art, even in surrealist circles, had risen to arms,
alarmed by the demoralizing and destructive power which I came to
represent. In the first place, my work was violent and audacious,
incomprehensible, disconcerting, subversive. In the second, it was not
'young' modern art. This much was taken for granted: I had a horror of my
epoch!
"Indeed my anti-Faustian spirit was exactly the contrary of that of the snotty
apologists of youth, of dynamism, of the instincts of spontaneity and of
laziness, incarnated in the degrading residues of poetic cubism and of the
more or less plastic art that ravaged the nauseating and sterile terraces
of Montparnasse."
In the above, Dali is equating the school of spontaneity (automatism) with
"laziness". He's saying that it's not enough to just spew automatic
drivel, to pick up a paintbrush and let it run where it may.
If that's not enough for you, consider the following:
"The vogue of surrealist objects discredited and buried the one which had
preceded it, the period called 'of dreams'. Nothing now appeared more
boring, more out of place and anachronistic, than to relate one's dreams
or to write fantastic and incongruous tales at the automatic dictate of
the unconscious. The surrealist object had created a new need of reality.
People no longer wanted to hear the 'potentially marvelous' talked about.
They wanted to touch the 'marvelous' with their hands, see it with their
eyes, and have proof of it in reality."
This sounds to me like he's suggesting that automatism is done with. What
point is there in sitting down and jotting down the stream of broken
images from your unconscious when you can calculatedly construct a
surrealist object? An object that, by its very nature, causes people to
be provoked, to see the irrational made material.
I recently posted a short quote from Dali where he suggested that politics
-- which he equated with "cancer" -- would be the death of surrealism.
Here's another quote in the same vein:
"Breton, thinking he saw a danger of obscurantism in the
communist-sympathizing faction, decided to expel Aragon and his adherents
-- Bunuel, Unic, Sadoul, and others -- from the surrealist group. I
considered Rene Crevel the only completely sincere communist among those I
knew at the time, yet he decided not to follow Aragon along what he termed
'the path of intellectual mediocrity.' Nevertheless he remained distant
from the group, and shortly afterward committed suicide, despairing of the
possibility of solving the dramatic contradictions of the ideological and
intellectual problems confronting the Post-War generation.
"Crevel was the third surrealist who committed suicide, thus
corroborating their affirmative answer to a questionnaire that had been
circulated in one of its first issues by the magazine *La Revolution
Surrealiste*, in which it was asked, 'Is suicide a solution?'
"I had answered no, supporting this negation with the affirmation of my
ceaseless individual activity. The remaining surrealists were in the
process of committing suicide gradually, sinking into the growing
obscurity of the lethargic and political tittle-tattle of the collective
cafe terraces."
Reading all of this, my faith in surrealism is restored. I see most of
you are under the sway of automatism (laziness), choking to death on your
own political ideologies, picking at one another over inconsequential
points of semantics and tradition.
It doesn't have to be that way. Slip out of the fog of your own excessive
thought. The burden of politics and ideology can be dropped. Surrealism
is play, is fun, is joy, is exploration. It is not the fascist camp of
armbands and ideology some of you would have it be.
Follow Dali. Leave Bretonian surrealism in the coffee houses of ancient
Paris where it belongs.
Nik
--
Licking clouds while my toes
touch the centre of the earth.
The Lemming
Nikolaus Maack <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:97j70d$jph$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> Follow Dali. Leave ... surrealism
> Nik
>
Couldn't resist...
Nick the Lemming
--
Happy VHEMT Volunteer
May we live long and die out
In Your Face, Space Coyote!
Morpheal
> "I had answered no, supporting this negation with the affirmation of my
> ceaseless individual activity. The remaining surrealists were in the
> process of committing suicide gradually, sinking into the growing
> obscurity of the lethargic and political tittle-tattle of the collective
> cafe terraces."
Have you determined why ? What was the siege that they were undergoing ?
Look carefully at Dali's work. Examine it. Determine what influences were
barraging his psyche. It is possible to find the answer from that. Look for
conflicts represented in those symbols. There is a story therein.
> Reading all of this, my faith in surrealism is restored. I see most of
> you are under the sway of automatism (laziness), choking to death on your
> own political ideologies, picking at one another over inconsequential
> points of semantics and tradition.
Automatism is really not a Surrealist invention. It was popular in the 19th
century in certain circles. Actually the artist Austin Osman Spare was involved in
using it to produce drawings. The claim is he invented automatic drawing. Aleister
Crowley followed the Golden Dawn tradition where automatism was utilized within
the practice of magick, and his practice of it derived from earlier practice than
that of the Surrealists. It is a borrowed method, not an original method.
Mediumship in the 19th century brought it to greater popularity where the medium
is the automaton, recording / playing back the content "received" by the medium's
psyche to the audience, at a seance for example. What of those instances of
individuals claimed to have become in contact with great musicians, writing down
"unknown works" in the style of the composer and knowing very little if anything
themselves about music ?
The list goes on, outside of Surrealism and the products are often interesting.
Far more interesting that the material produced by the Surrealists. Why is that ?
I have some theories on that but it relates to my question about Dali and
conflicts.
> It doesn't have to be that way. Slip out of the fog of your own excessive
> thought. The burden of politics and ideology can be dropped. Surrealism
> is play, is fun, is joy, is exploration. It is not the fascist camp of
> armbands and ideology some of you would have it be.
An entirely incorrect statement. In fact the betrayal of Surrealism. Even if, a
betrayal of that kind remains within what it betrays. (As is so very often the
case.)
Surrealism as the symbollic representation / communication of the life of the
mind.
The merging of depth psychology's insights with art is at the very roots of
Surrealism,
where the life of the psyche, the events there, are given equal "reality" along
with the events of the "external" world.
> Follow Dali. Leave Bretonian surrealism in the coffee houses of ancient
> Paris where it belongs.
At least Dali was capable of survival, in personal and artistic terms, keeping his
own mind for the most part and being able to produce artistic product according to
his own style. Many were not as strong minded as that and were destroyed. Those
include the suicides (physical and mental) that you allude to.
Morpheal
Nikolaus Maack
> Automatism is really not a Surrealist invention.
I know. This makes it all the more depressing when surrealists insist
that automatism is the cornerstone of surrealist activity. It shouldn't
be -- because inevitably pure automatism is boring, repetitive, lazy, and
sloppy.
If a surrealist wants to explore the depths of their own soul (and assist
the rest of the universe in doing so as well) there are much better ways
than doing it "automatically".
I said:
>> It doesn't have to be that way. Slip out of the fog of your own excessive
>> thought. The burden of politics and ideology can be dropped. Surrealism
>> is play, is fun, is joy, is exploration. It is not the fascist camp of
>> armbands and ideology some of you would have it be.
Morph says:
> An entirely incorrect statement. In fact the betrayal of Surrealism.
>Even if, a betrayal of that kind remains within what it betrays. (As is
>so very often the case.)
The notion of uniting the conscious and the unconscious has certain
political consequences. How those consequences are interpreted --
communism, libertarianism, democracy, anti-capitalist ideologies, whatever
-- need not be carved into stone. In fact, there is no real need for
individual surrealists to worry about such issues. Pursue your truth, and
let the political structure take care of itself.
When politics become the main focus of surrealism, something has gone
terribly wrong. Just look at what communism did to the old surrealist
club -- it tore them apart.
CycloTron
wrote:
>Morpheal (morp...@sympatico.ca) writes:
>> Automatism is really not a Surrealist invention.
>
>I know. This makes it all the more depressing when surrealists insist
>that automatism is the cornerstone of surrealist activity. It shouldn't
>be -- because inevitably pure automatism is boring, repetitive, lazy, and
>sloppy.
>
You're right about that... on the other hand, does automatism really
exists ? I mean, once an "automatist" has started with a blank
canvas, as soon as the first line is drawn, no matter which way, all
the rest of the painting will be pre-planned around that line or brush
stroke.... so, from there it's lost its automatic aspect.. the same
with the colors.... all the colors will be based on which color was
done first.... etc....
automatism = fraction of the whole work
So, how can it have a movement of its own ?
(`'·.,¸¸,ø¤°Cyclo{-_-}Tron°¤ø,¸¸,.·'´)
http://www.geocities.com/donbolduc/
http://dbolduc.50megs.com
Morpheal
> Morpheal (morp...@sympatico.ca) writes:
> > Automatism is really not a Surrealist invention.
>
> I know. This makes it all the more depressing when surrealists insist
> that automatism is the cornerstone of surrealist activity. It shouldn't
> be -- because inevitably pure automatism is boring, repetitive, lazy, and
> sloppy.
Not necessarily true. If automatism is taken as meaning non censorship of the
elicited material that wells up, when no longer blocked / repressed, then
automatism would be the only method. How that material is then utilized, as
material to be used within the creative process is a different question. That is
where the real work begins. The method of mining for raw materials is
automatism. There could be no better method, assuming genuine automatism can be
achieved.
> The notion of uniting the conscious and the unconscious has certain
> political consequences. How those consequences are interpreted --
> communism, libertarianism, democracy, anti-capitalist ideologies, whatever
> -- need not be carved into stone. In fact, there is no real need for
> individual surrealists to worry about such issues. Pursue your truth, and
> let the political structure take care of itself.
Wrong way around. The ideal would be NOT to function as an automaton, on the
basis of "instinctive" internal responses. In the political sphere any totalism
relies on internalization to that level so that there is no thought about action,
but action is automatic. Nik says he "loves Big Brother" because Nik has that
come automatically from his unconscious where it is programmed into his very
core, or as deep as it can be ingrained. He does not have to think about whether
he loves Big Brother or not. He reponds from that "truth" within himself. Nik
does not doubt that he loves Big Brother. Nik does not question it. Nik does not
think about it and analyze it. Nik expresses his internalized love for Big
Brother at every appropriate opportunity, from his unconscious, instinctively.
Nik functions in that regard as would an animal, without rationalizing. Stalinist
communism, certain kinds of socialism, fascism, some cults, Catholicism in its
worst forms (Inquisition), Protestantism in its puritanical and reactionary
(seeing the Catholic church as too liberal) forms, all have totalism in common.
It is their modus operandi.
Automatism within Surrealism, as method, is a reactionary stance to totalism, and
not its slave automaton. It is a method for becoming aware of the raw material
deposited in the strata of the subconscious and unconscious. Once aware of it, on
the surface, it can be thought about, considered, culled, fought, overcome and
defeated if need be. It is a radical reaction to Stalinist communism, and to
Spanish, Italian and German fascism in that historic context where Surrealism was
founded and situated.
Its lessons remain relevant today. In that regard Dali and Breton were not at
odds.
> When politics become the main focus of surrealism, something has gone
> terribly wrong. Just look at what communism did to the old surrealist
> club -- it tore them apart.
Politics always was the primary and really the only focus of Surrealism. All the
Surrealist events, performances, artworks, the manifesto,...everything, was
wholly political. It remains the most political genre or school of visual art.
That is why it is often the least popular.
I refer you to The Secret Life of Salvador Dali:
My Battle:
Against Simplicity.
For Complexity.
Against Uniformity.
For Diversification.
Against Equalitarianism.
For Hierarchization.
Against the Collective.
For the Individual.
Against Politics.
For Metaphysics.
Against Music.
For Architecture.
Against Nature.
For Aesthetics.
Against Progress.
For Perenniality.
Against Mechanism.
For the Dream.
Against Abstraction.
For the Concrete.
Against Youth.
For Maturity.
Against Opportunism.
For Machiavellian Fanaticism.
Against Spinach.
For Snails.
Against the Cinema.
For the Theatre.
Against Buddha.
For the Marquis de Sade.
Against the Orient.
For the Occident.
Against the Sun.
For the Moon.
Against Revolution.
For Tradition.
Against Michelangelo.
For Raphael.
Against Rembrandt.
For Vermeer.
Against Savage Objects.
For Ultra-Civilized 1900 Objects.
Against African-Modern Art.
Fo the Art of the Renaissance.
Against Philosophy.
For Religion.
Against Medicine.
For Magic.
Against Mountains.
For the Coast Line.
Against Phantoms.
For Spectres.
AGaisnt Women.
For Gala.
Against Men.
For Myself.
Against Time.
For Soft Watches.
Against Scepticism.
For Faith.
--------------
Of course we might each change a few or add and delete from the list.
Many of those I _Myself_ very much agree with. Instead of Gala there would
be another name on that list. Etc. After all, it is Dali's list and we are
individuals
who have our own lists.
It is political.
Nothing but political.
Automatism is a political method. Even more relevant now than it was then.
Morpheal
Morpheal
> On 2 Mar 2001 15:11:58 GMT, ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack)
> wrote:
>
> >Morpheal (morp...@sympatico.ca) writes:
> >> Automatism is really not a Surrealist invention.
> >
> >I know. This makes it all the more depressing when surrealists insist
> >that automatism is the cornerstone of surrealist activity. It shouldn't
> >be -- because inevitably pure automatism is boring, repetitive, lazy, and
> >sloppy.
> >
> You're right about that... on the other hand, does automatism really
> exists ? I mean, once an "automatist" has started with a blank
> canvas, as soon as the first line is drawn, no matter which way, all
> the rest of the painting will be pre-planned around that line or brush
> stroke.... so, from there it's lost its automatic aspect.. the same
> with the colors.... all the colors will be based on which color was
> done first.... etc....automatism = fraction of the whole work
> So, how can it have a movement of its own ?
Does language really exist ?
Once one has started with an alphabet on a blank piece of paper......
Methinks your argument is lame and even a crutch will not help hold it up.
M.
Nikolaus Maack
> Not necessarily true. If automatism is taken as meaning non censorship of the
> elicited material that wells up, when no longer blocked / repressed, then
> automatism would be the only method.
People in this newsgroup keep trying to define automatism in this way,
which I think is misleading. Letting the ideas come forth and using them
-- I don't see this as having any connection to being "automatic". To me,
this is pure creativity. All art (even bad art) comes from the ideas that
bubbled up and the artist used.
Automatism implies a certain amount of letting go of the steering wheel,
not exerting any control over the material as it comes forth, reproducing
it without altering it. It's this that I am describing as lazy,
half-assed, undisciplined.
>Nik says he "loves Big Brother" because Nik has that
> come automatically from his unconscious where it is programmed into his very
> core, or as deep as it can be ingrained. He does not have to think about
>whether he loves Big Brother or not. He reponds from that "truth" within
>himself.
I think we actually agree. Let me blather for a bit.
The above paragraph sounds to me like what people mean when they describe
automatism. Let it all flow out of you, write it down.
When I talk of uniting conscious and unconscious, I also mean uniting
rational and irrational, logic and illogic. Intuition has to temper
rationality, and vice-versa.
So, for example, I "automatically" summon up the "emotional truth" that I
love big brother. It would then be useful to consider this belief using
rationality and logic. Does the belief make sense? What logical reason
would I have for choosing it?
Recently I have noticed this pattern in human behavior. I mentioned it in
a previous post. A person BELIEVES in something for an emotional,
personal, psychological reason. They then develop a "logic" to
rationalize the belief.
For example, a schizophrenic wants to have power over his life. He
decides he's Napoleon, because he associates Napoleon with power and force
and control. He then makes up an explanation for how it is that he's
Napoleon -- he was cloned by flying saucers and etc, etc. The logic is
utterly frazzled, but it allows him to believe the useful truth.
A more down to earth example -- my girlfriend Michelle is fostering a
puppy for the weekend. On Saturday, we went out and left the dog in the
apartment. When we came back, there was a note on the door that said,
"Next time consider taking your dog with you. The barking and yelping
went on for a bit long!"
This upset Michelle and she felt bad and her self-esteem was hurt. So she
said, "Yes, but they smoke in the hall outside our apartment and wear too
much perfume. No one respects us. They come in and out at all hours and
malke lots of noise."
This train of thought allowed Michelle to feel better -- it served an
emotional purpose -- but it was totally illogical.
It's my concern that an emphasis on being "automatic" emphasizes drawing
forth the concepts without critically analyzing them. We tend to be a
little lax when being "critical" of our own beliefs. We turn up the heat
on any idea that we don't like, using "logic" to knock apart that which
doesn't appeal.
As for politics -- I'm not a big fan. And what I see in surrealism is a
total lack of critical thinking when it comes to politics. "Of course you
have to be a libertarian communist with anti-capitalist leanings who is
also an atheist." Why? I question that. I question all beliefs that are
presented as indismissable fact, especially when the best explanation
offered for it is, "Well, that's just the way it is."
In other words, I see a lot of "automatism" and not a lot of critical
analysis of the material drawn forth.
"Well, we can't critically consider that, because it's a long time part of
the surrealist tradition."
That seems to be the unspoken rule that gets spoken so often.
>It is a method for becoming aware of the raw material
> deposited in the strata of the subconscious and unconscious. Once aware of it, on
> the surface, it can be thought about, considered, culled, fought, overcome and
> defeated if need be.
I rarely see this part in this newsgroup. You'll note my role of critic
has put me in the position of outsider. I don't mind the role -- but I
think it helps demonstrate how critical thinking isn't exactly embraced
around here.
"You don't agree with me? Well, that's because you don't understand my
position, you know-nothing weasel."
This is an extremely common defense mechanism. It allows a person to
instantly dismiss everything a person says in one slash of a pen.
> I refer you to The Secret Life of Salvador Dali:
>
> My Battle:
>
> Against Simplicity.
> For Complexity.
> Against Uniformity.
> For Diversification.
> Against Equalitarianism.
> For Hierarchization.
> Against the Collective.
> For the Individual.
> Against Politics.
I'm trying to understand right now how you can say that Dali's battle
against politics is in itself a political thing.
john adams
>half-assed, undisciplined.
(so it would almost sound as if brute force were required for truly
being creative)
>It's my concern that an emphasis on being "automatic" emphasizes drawing
>forth the concepts without critically analyzing them. We tend to be a
>little lax when being "critical" of our own beliefs. We turn up the heat
>on any idea that we don't like, using "logic" to knock apart that which
>doesn't appeal.
Analyzing behavior, belief, utilization of logic: this is important
to you when you sit down to write words? It's too bad that
this isn't put to good use when reading and weighing your own
thoughts.
>"Of course you
>have to be a libertarian communist with anti-capitalist leanings who is
>also an atheist." Why? I question that. I question all beliefs that are
>presented as indismissable fact, especially when the best explanation
>offered for it is, "Well, that's just the way it is."
>
>In other words, I see a lot of "automatism" and not a lot of critical
>analysis of the material drawn forth.
Completely ridiculous.
Dale Houstman
"john adams" <gala...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010305113221...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
But not surprisingly so, you must admit.
dmh
john adams
>> Completely ridiculous.
>But not surprisingly so, you must admit.
No, not at all, I agree. That's why most of the time
i fall silent with regards to the whole compulsive charade
...or whatever it is one may call it (fool's parade).
john
Nikolaus Maack
> Completely ridiculous.
John, you do understand that you're merely proving my point, don't you?
Simply saying, "That is a ridiculous thought that deserves no response,"
is not an argument. It's a dismissal. Saying, "Too bad you don't weigh
your own thoughts critically," without offering any weighing of the
thoughts, without actually consdering the ideas, without actually
responding to what was said -- none of this is an argument.
Having a degree in creative writing, I've been forced to read people's
written words and respond with comments and criticism. I've also had to
read and listen to the comments of others. One of the problems many
people have, when writing commentary, is getting past saying, "That
sucks," or "That's good," without offering an explanation. It's what
writers always complain about when trying to get feedback.
Fans say: "This is really good! I really liked this! Keep writing!"
That doesn't help a writer any more than saying: "This is really bad.
Awful, awful stuff. Stop writing."
All of what I'm saying right now, by the way, demonstrates what I mean.
I'm telling you that, as a critic, you're wanting. But because I'm a good
critic (unlike yourself) I have also described WHY you are wanting as a
critic.
And that's why I'm a better person than you.
john adams
Simply saying, "That is a ridiculous thought that deserves no response,"
is not an argument. It's a dismissal. >>
You are absolutely right - a dismissal - and it indeed deserves no further
comment,
as proven in the past such a task would be fruitless, if that were the desire.
So, such
comments are typically wrapped in relatively zero desire and boredom it turns
out.
Does your minor in creative writing better qualify you to criticize amongst
newsgroup goers:
I hardly think so. You have proven time and again your critical faculties are
somewhat
lacking, tied down in knots by your own fingers, as it were.
>And that's why I'm a better person than you.
You're simply a better asshole than me, that's all.
cheers!
john
Brandon Freels
> When I talk of uniting conscious and unconscious, I also mean uniting
> rational and irrational, logic and illogic. Intuition has to temper
> rationality, and vice-versa.
Its not about "uniting" opposites but rather about dissolving dichotomies.
There is no such thing as "rational" or "irrational" or "logic" or "illogic"
or "conscious" or "unconscious". Now-a-days these are just "big" words used
by idiots who try to understand things that are too complex for their
deflated minds.
Dale Houstman
"Brandon Freels" <b.j.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:0FVo6.5544$UN5.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
of a tapir fart?
dmh
Morpheal
> Morpheal (morp...@sympatico.ca) writes:
> > Not necessarily true. If automatism is taken as meaning non censorship of the
> > elicited material that wells up, when no longer blocked / repressed, then
> > automatism would be the only method.
>
> Automatism implies a certain amount of letting go of the steering wheel,
> not exerting any control over the material as it comes forth, reproducing
> it without altering it. It's this that I am describing as lazy,
> half-assed, undisciplined.
Misleading somewhat to say that. Automatism is the removing of the filters that filter
out and block much of the material that is elicited in the automatist process. Those
filters are necessary for normative functioning in the world, but they are a blinkered
inner and outer reality. They are not the whole external or internal life. Automatism
tries to loose the bonds to free the welling up of otherwise suppressed perceptual and
cognitive material. Perceptions, as process, take place below the conscious level,
where sensory data is interpreted, filtered, selected. You cannot deal with the whole
of all data that is input. It has to be screened and the relevant bits put forth into
consciousness. This results in a perceptual narrowness, and similarly a cognitive
narrowness, where much of inner and outer reality is ignored. More than really needs to
be ignored in order to function in reality. The side effect of the process. Automatism
tries to access as much of that material as possible.
> The above paragraph sounds to me like what people mean when they describe
> automatism. Let it all flow out of you, write it down.
And yet that is an inadequate description. Truely effective automatism is much more
difficult than that. Remember that the filters, the blocks, the selection of data is at
best second nature and at worst instinctive. Overcoming that is hard work. Sure, some
people play at it and think they are really doing it. Not quite. They are simply
exercising their imaginations a little more than usually. Not the same thing.
> When I talk of uniting conscious and unconscious, I also mean uniting
> rational and irrational, logic and illogic. Intuition has to temper
> rationality, and vice-versa.
In automatism the need to bring to conscious light the underpinnings, foundations, of
those processes. Those patterns of thought need to be examined also. Some of them need
to be put into abeyance and yet knowingly so. To have control over when they are
exercised and when put into abeyance is difficult. People function on auto pilot for
the most part. They react rationally or irrationally according to certain programming,
unthinkingly, automatically and yet automatism attempts to break down exactly that, and
bring exactly that to light.
> So, for example, I "automatically" summon up the "emotional truth" that I
> love big brother. It would then be useful to consider this belief using
> rationality and logic. Does the belief make sense? What logical reason
> would I have for choosing it?
You would not if you really had internalized it. Your ability to question that belief
is a step towards Surrealist Automatism. You then allow all the associated material in
the mind to make itself known. Suddenly you know how it happened. You know what is at
the root of it all. You know Big Brother is the enemy. The painstakingly input totalist
program has broken down. The loop has broken down. Nik is no longer simply another
victim of brainwashing. The brainwashing has become ineffective.
> Recently I have noticed this pattern in human behavior. I mentioned it in
> a previous post. A person BELIEVES in something for an emotional,
> personal, psychological reason. They then develop a "logic" to
> rationalize the belief.
Or they have a logic to rationalize the belief. It fits with the other patterns. It
forms a coherent part of their worldview. It might be a false worldview, but it is a
coherent worldview. Automatism attempts to elicit the stuff that does not fit in that
worldview, and that puts into question and shatters that worldview. Automatism is the
arch enemy of totalism. If Big Brother could wipe out one idea in this world it would
be that of Surrealist Automatism because he does not want anyone to know that much
about themselves.
> For example, a schizophrenic wants to have power over his life. He
> decides he's Napoleon, because he associates Napoleon with power and force
> and control. He then makes up an explanation for how it is that he's
> Napoleon -- he was cloned by flying saucers and etc, etc. The logic is
> utterly frazzled, but it allows him to believe the useful truth.
hmmm..... delusional, magalomaniacal...but schizophrenic ?
It is dangerous to use technical language from a specific discipline.
> This train of thought allowed Michelle to feel better -- it served an
> emotional purpose -- but it was totally illogical.
Was it ? I don't see it as illogical. She dislikes their habits. They annoy her. So
she feels some annoyance from herself ought to be as tolerated as her tolerance of the
annoyances they make. She equates annoyance with annoyance. I see logical thought
there. You seem to have a belief about her, as to her being illogical that blinkers
your own understanding. You need to examine your own beliefs about her in that
instance.
The belief that you might have, for instance, that she is an "irrational woman". That
colours your vision. Nowif you practiced automatism, truly and dilligently, eventually
material would surface as to the foundations of your beliefs and perceptions about
women. You would then be surprised at yourself. You would shock yourself.
> It's my concern that an emphasis on being "automatic" emphasizes drawing
> forth the concepts without critically analyzing them. We tend to be a
> little lax when being "critical" of our own beliefs. We turn up the heat
> on any idea that we don't like, using "logic" to knock apart that which
> doesn't appeal.
Yes, as I was saying.
> As for politics -- I'm not a big fan.
I am not and have never been "political". A difficult statement that few would really
understand if they have known me for long enough.
So I advocate no labels, even if there are some labels that I particularly strongly
reject, moreso than other political labels.
> In other words, I see a lot of "automatism" and not a lot of critical
> analysis of the material drawn forth.
Yes,... and critical analysis of a particular sort. Suspending beliefs, putting aside
assumptions. Being aware of those as what they are. Very difficult for most.
> I rarely see this part in this newsgroup. You'll note my role of critic
> has put me in the position of outsider. I don't mind the role -- but I
> think it helps demonstrate how critical thinking isn't exactly embraced
> around here.
There is no other possible role.
To be mired too deeply into it is quicksand and eventually death.
> This is an extremely common defense mechanism. It allows a person to
> instantly dismiss everything a person says in one slash of a pen.
Exactly what happens a lot on the www as in the outside world. People do that
all the time without thinking twice about what they are doing.
> I'm trying to understand right now how you can say that Dali's battle
> against politics is in itself a political thing.
I believe it is exactly that. However he included anarchism as politics.
He was not an anarchist even though the battle against politics is something
that has some elements in common with true anarchism. True anarchism,
of course, does not bring about insurrections and toss molotovs around
the streets. Not at all. True anarchism is an examination of the customary
practices, the irrational rituals, of our social and political lives, and in that
has some relationship to Surrealism the way a cousin is related to another
cousin, though they come from different families.
M.
Morpheal
> When his mind deflated do you think it made a twittering bird sound, or more
> of a tapir fart?
It made the sound of a dead sparrow, as it lay under a slow accumulation of
new white snow. Snow being all there is to know about it.
M.
Nikolaus Maack
[A description of automatism I like.]
We seem to agree that material obtained "automatically" has to be then
critically assessed. We seem to agree on the proper process for obtaining
material and analyzing it. But I still think the words "pure psychic
automatism" or just "automatism" are misleading and inaccurate. The words
themselves seem to suggest that this is a letting go of critical
faculties.
I don't really have a problem with the concept -- I have a problem with
the term itself.
> hmmm..... delusional, magalomaniacal...but schizophrenic ?
> It is dangerous to use technical language from a specific discipline.
Perhaps. But this particular discipline seems to have a lot to teach us.
>> This train of thought allowed Michelle to feel better -- it served an
>> emotional purpose -- but it was totally illogical.
>
> Was it ? I don't see it as illogical. She dislikes their habits. They annoy her. So
> she feels some annoyance from herself ought to be as tolerated as her tolerance of the
> annoyances they make. She equates annoyance with annoyance. I see logical thought
> there.
It was different than that. She knew she was at fault. We'd left the dog
there and the dog barked and it annoyed the neighbours. She'd made a
mistake (of sorts) and it had bad consequences. In order to negate the
responsibility for the problem, she summoned up other things other people
had done -- possibly not even the same people who complained about the dog
-- which allowed her to discard her feeling of guilt.
That way, it wasn't her fault.
To exaggerate it for effect:
"You can't get mad at me for shooting you! People are always shooting at
other people! So I shot you today. Big deal!"
Pointing at the "crimes" of others in order to justify your own "crime"
doesn't make sense. It's self serving, in the same way someone who dumps
toxic waste might say, "If I don't do it, someone else will."
Also, Michelle clearly understood she was doing this in order to defend
herself. When she argued that the neighbours had no right to complain
about our barking dog -- when they smoke in the hallway, make noise, wear
strong perfume, etc -- she looked extremely embarrassed. She knew this
wasn't a reasonable defense.
> You seem to have a belief about her, as to her being illogical that blinkers
> your own understanding.
I don't think so, but it's possible.
> So I advocate no labels, even if there are some labels that I
> particularly strongly reject, moreso than other political labels.
I try to reject labels as well, as I find they only lead to
misunderstandings. People develop prejudices over the label -- all
Christians are stupid, all atheists are emotionless, all cookies are
chocolate -- and it becomes difficult to convince them that their
prejudices are wrong.
Some cookies are chocolate! Others are not.
[the outsider]
> There is no other possible role.
> To be mired too deeply into it is quicksand and eventually death.
Agreed.
Morpheal
> We seem to agree that material obtained "automatically" has to be then
> critically assessed. We seem to agree on the proper process for obtaining
> material and analyzing it. But I still think the words "pure psychic
> automatism" or just "automatism" are misleading and inaccurate. The words
> themselves seem to suggest that this is a letting go of critical
> faculties.
There is and there isn't. That is the difficulty. You seem to want binary is, isn't types
of logic. We need polyvalent logic where it can be is, isn't, neither is nor isn't, and both
is and isn't. At least in Surrealism we need that kind of logic. Otherwise we get stuck in a
horrible kind of intellectual rut. Actually the Hindus had such a logic as I suggest, a 7
variabled logic rather than our's where is and isn't is a possibility and neither is nor
isn't is also a logical possibility.
> I don't really have a problem with the concept -- I have a problem with
> the term itself.
What's in a name ? Now I am Morpheal.... and before that I was Storm.
Before that I was something else. Same, regardless.
> It was different than that. She knew she was at fault. We'd left the dog
> there and the dog barked and it annoyed the neighbours. She'd made a
> mistake (of sorts) and it had bad consequences. In order to negate the
> responsibility for the problem, she summoned up other things other people
> had done -- possibly not even the same people who complained about the dog
> -- which allowed her to discard her feeling of guilt.
Perhaps... and yet.... perhaps not quite as big a mistake as you might assume.
Perhaps a subconscious attempt to get even with the annoying neighbours. ;->
> "You can't get mad at me for shooting you! People are always shooting at
> other people! So I shot you today. Big deal!"
It is when that mind flip happens where it is taken literally (the word literally is an
ironic pun in that regard) that people are always shooting someone down... that
terrible things begin to happen. It is true that they are, and yet that rarely translates
into dead bodies. Bullet ridden psyches perhaps, but not dead bodies.
> I try to reject labels as well, as I find they only lead to
> misunderstandings. People develop prejudices over the label -- all
> Christians are stupid, all atheists are emotionless, all cookies are
> chocolate -- and it becomes difficult to convince them that their
> prejudices are wrong.
Yes. And how the label is currently defined and by whom.
> Some cookies are chocolate! Others are not.
Some cookies are never edible.
Some cookies have more in common with ice cream, but we certainly
won't go to that subject, in this kind of civilized intellectual discussion.
M.
Nikolaus Maack
> There is and there isn't. That is the difficulty. You seem to want binary is, isn't types
> of logic. We need polyvalent logic where it can be is, isn't, neither is nor isn't, and both
> is and isn't. At least in Surrealism we need that kind of logic. Otherwise we get stuck in a
> horrible kind of intellectual rut.
I hate binary systems. On, off. True, false. I always want to create my
own option, my own rule, my own particular stance.
While I understand that "purse sidekick automobilism" is meant to be both
rational and not, controlling and free, left and right, etc -- the name
seems to suggest only ONE particular stance. And at the risk of being
pelted with moistened towelettes, it's the stance people tend to give in
to the most:
"Just like, go with the vibe, man! Like, cut loose, and don't let society
tell you what to do! Go with the flow. Don't do, just be. Float on your
own special breeze, you lovely little rain cloud."
This brainstate needs to be avoided. It's just as stupid as loving the
system. In fact, if the baby boomers are to be believed, being a hippy
will eventually turn you into a corporate stooge. One theory I recently
read suggested that hippie-ism started as a sort of slacker
self-obsessiveness. It quickly turned into a kind of corporate
self-obsessiveness. The ME generation -- started in the 60s with just
flaking out. Later took over the world and demanded a stock portfolio.
Or something.
Speaking about an entire generation as though it were one single
individual is probably a bad idea. Oh well.
> What's in a name ? Now I am Morpheal.... and before that I was Storm.
> Before that I was something else. Same, regardless.
Shakespeare was wrong -- a rose by any other name is NOT as sweet. The
boys in marketing know all about this. You have to tie your product into
preconceived notions that the populace at large has. Call the latest
household cleanser "Super Rose Water", and you might have a winner. Call
it "Shit in a Bottle", and you don't.
> Perhaps... and yet.... perhaps not quite as big a mistake as you might assume.
> Perhaps a subconscious attempt to get even with the annoying neighbours. ;->
Maybe. Although the dog didn't whine or bark or make a noise within our
earshot. To come home and find the note was a little startling -- we
thought the dog was fine. Oh well. He's back at the animal shelter now,
hopefully in the process of being adopted out to someone.
(As I mentioned in a previous post, my gf works at the shelter, and we
were fostering him for the weekend in order to give him a better chance of
getting a permanent home.)
> Some cookies are never edible.
Tough cookies.
> Some cookies have more in common with ice cream, but we certainly
> won't go to that subject, in this kind of civilized intellectual discussion.
I like Oreo Cookie Ice Cream -- but thanks to my failing internal organs,
it might be a long time before I can safely eat it again. Alas.
Morpheal
> I hate binary systems. On, off. True, false. I always want to create my
> own option, my own rule, my own particular stance.
Ah, but most choices you get to make are non choices. They are zero or one, no or yes, but not an
array of positive integers. The choose nothing or something kinds of choices are the predominant
kind of choices. It is far from "free choice" which is essentially uncoerced choice between two or
more positive options. Nevertheless people are encouraged to believe in that as being free choice.
Particularly difficult as they are typically more often blind sided as to what the next positive
choice might be and when it might come.
> This brainstate needs to be avoided. It's just as stupid as loving the
> system. In fact, if the baby boomers are to be believed, being a hippy
> will eventually turn you into a corporate stooge.
The stooges made good money and enjoyed their work. So I really would not
care to criticize the stooges. All three, actually four, of them. Ah, to be as lucky
as a stooge....
> Speaking about an entire generation as though it were one single
> individual is probably a bad idea. Oh well.
Yes, that is a bad idea.
> Shakespeare was wrong -- a rose by any other name is NOT as sweet. The
> boys in marketing know all about this. You have to tie your product into
> preconceived notions that the populace at large has. Call the latest
> household cleanser "Super Rose Water", and you might have a winner. Call
> it "Shit in a Bottle", and you don't.
If it is a product marketed by a powerful marketer then it will sell no matter what is the bottle
and no matter what it is called. On the other hand, if the blessing is not upon it.... no matter
what is in it, and no matter what it is called it will not sell anything to anyone
anywhere.......You know it has no talents of its own. They are only give by a kind of grace, and
you have to be blessed to do the blessing. In
fact try to discern what results in the blessing and reasoning will not prevail.
> I like Oreo Cookie Ice Cream -- but thanks to my failing internal organs,
> it might be a long time before I can safely eat it again. Alas.
Sounds as if the organs need tuning.
M.
Parry
>
> Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> > Surrealism
> > is play, is fun, is joy, is exploration. It is not the fascist camp of
> > armbands and ideology some of you would have it be.
>
> An entirely incorrect statement. In fact the betrayal of Surrealism. Even if, a
> betrayal of that kind remains within what it betrays. (As is so very often the
> case.)
Incorrect not least of all because Nik implies the people on this
newsgroup are fascists. Is Nik an imbecile?
-- Parry
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
barrett john erickson
"Parry" <pa...@perfectOMITmail.com> wrote in message
news:3AA743...@perfectOMITmail.com...
> Morpheal wrote:
> >
> > Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> > > Surrealism
> > > is play, is fun, is joy, is exploration. It is not the fascist camp
of
> > > armbands and ideology some of you would have it be.
> >
> > An entirely incorrect statement. In fact the betrayal of Surrealism.
Even if, a
> > betrayal of that kind remains within what it betrays. (As is so very
often the
> > case.)
>
> Incorrect not least of all because Nik implies the people on this
> newsgroup are fascists. Is Nik an imbecile?
are rhetorical questions to be answered?
-- barrett
BLUE FEATHERS #3 is now available
http://www.MagneticFields.org/blue/
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
surrealists in minnesota
Sur...@MagneticFields.org
==============================================
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
contradictions."
...André Breton
==============================================